Wikipedia:Peer review/Odwalla/archive1

Odwalla

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because one of the primary contributors has asked me to help bring the article to GA status. While I believe that I can help him, I think additional eyes would be better.

Thanks, Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I'm the annoying primary contributer ;). Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at the article from the perspective of GA assessment. The following points may need to be addressed:

Lead: "negative growth" - this sounds a bit management speak-ish. Do we mean "decline"?

Changed to decline

First paragraph of Origin: more explicit citations might be asked for. The cite at the end of the paragraph seems to cover much of the content, but it could be read as only applying to the closing sentence.

Working on it

Done. Is what I did satisfactory? Ref #2 pretty much covers the entire first paragraph, but I added a few other numbers in.

Incorporation–1996: what does "side business" mean?

Changed to "small business"

"By the time Odwalla went IPO..." Try to avoid industry jargon and unexplained abbreviations.

I changed it to "went public". I hope that's an accurate synonym; I learned the word from reading Dilbert comics. LOL

Why did the company relocate so often in the mid 1990s?

They moved their factory to meet production demands, added a bit about that. I'm not sure why they moved their HQ, perhaps to be close to San Francisco. I'll look up on that.

"Odwalla Inc. gained a growing fan base..." Can this be expressed more formally? More importantly though, I don't see this supported by the source given, which is mostly about the perils of getting 'sloppy' re the e. coli outbreak.

Dang it. It says "devoted fans" ... I'll see if I can come up with something.

I removed this.

1996 E. coli outbreak: this section comes across as a little disorganised. The opening sentence assumes the reader already knows about the outbreak and recall, although this isn't covered in the article until the following section. The assertion "Widely-publicized" needs backing up with citations, as does the sentence "...the company spent several million dollars to upgrade the plant's safety features."

Removed "widely-publicized," my proof was that there were a lot of article written about it but I don't think that counts. ;) Added ref # for the improvements sentence.

Try to avoid using "For example" (which appears elsewhere in the article too).

Working on it

Removed a couple of For examples, will continue to be on the lookout.

"Experts have praised Odwalla's new system as being 'the most comprehensive quality control and safety system in the fresh juice industry'." The source says 'some' experts - we have to be careful not to over-egg the pudding ;)

Added "some"; thanks for spotting that.

1997–Current: "Unfortunately, the company had to drop the plans because they were unable to allocate enough money for the project." It may be unfortunate, but we can't say this - it's editor commentary. Perhaps replace with 'However' if a transitional word is needed?

Changed to however

"Odwalla's growth continued to have good growth in 2007" Prose tweak needed ;)

haha. removed " 's growth "

It's not necessary to list every product the company makes or has made. We wouldn't normally do this; some articles would be huge if we did ;) A short section on the major products and product lines is probably sufficient; the lists should go. We also have to be careful of inadvertent advertising, which is how this could come across. Similarly, the article possibly over-uses non-free images of the company's products. One or two is probably enough.

Removed two non-vital images. I'll try to summarize the product lines like in Maraba Coffee. Thanks

Sources: I sampled these pretty much at random; most look pretty good, but Amazon is not regarded as a reliable source (and exists to sell the products so falls foul of WP:LINKSTOAVOID). I was unsure about others - for example, what makes www.fool.com a reliable source?

I've been beating my brains out trying to find a source that lists the prices of all the products! The price varies throughout the year, and each product is priced differently, and prices change year to year! I'll see what I can do. As for fool.com, that's The Motley Fool, a big business analyst finance website thingy (I have very sophisticated language; can you tell?). It's very similar to Yahoo Finance.

Hope this helps! Looking at the history, this article was once virtually an advertising puff-piece for the company, so you've done a great job to bring it so far. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 09:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with all of EyeSerene's comments. Very briefly, here are some more suggestions for improvement. If you want yet more comments, please ask here.

E. coli is usually italicized. Since the strain is known and wikilinked in the body of the article, I think it should also be linked in the lead (i.e. don't just link bacteria in the lead). Also does this article really need two images of E. coli?

Done italicizing, added wikilink, removed 1 picture

The article has six fair use images (logo, four bottles, and products). This seems a bit excessive - please read WP:NFCC What do the four separate images of bottles contribute to our understanding of the company?

Removed two bottle pics, left two (one is the Future shake, a discontinued product and important to the company history, the other a current bottle, to show packaging of current products.)

Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "vertical" can be used to make the image narrower.

Done

The products section is very list-y.

Will work on summarizing lists

Removed lists :)

A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow - Maraba Coffee is a FA and may be a possible model.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super. Thanks. Intothewoods29 (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both so much. I'll see if I can address all of your concerns ASAP. Just a couple of questions:

On Maraba Coffee, the first image shows the packaging of one of their products, and it's a free image. If I take the picture of one of Odwalla's products, is it a free image also? I was told (I think) on WP:Help (the media/copyright page) that Odwalla product pics should be Fair use. I'm assuming because it's an American product and the packaging shows the logo, but I'd sure love to have some free images on the page.
Should I create a List of Current Odwalla Products or something and link the Products section to it? I'm not sure if it'd pass the notablility test for some editors.
Would a picture of their HQ that I took be free or fair use?

Once again, thanks a lot. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering removing info about the price of the juice, because I can't find any reliable resources and Maraba coffee doesn't do that... so yeah. :)

Also, if you have the time, I'd love it if you could assess this on a FA level, instead of just GA. I want to make it as good as possible. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Maraba coffee image was taken in Rwanda, so copyright law there may be quite different. Look at the fair use rationale on Image:CokeII.jpg. One of the questions is would the Odwalla bottles be copyrighted or just trademarked? I would ask at the talk page for WP:Image or WP:Fair use. The HQ would be a free image. You can always leave things like the price in and try and get more PR comments and see what others think. I will try to take a second look at the article, but it may take a few days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyrights are a bit of a minefield! Regarding the prices, I'm not convinced they need to be there (I meant to bring that up in my earlier comments, but forgot). The problems are those you've already noted - they become out-of-date very quickly, and sourcing them without running into WP:RS problems can be tricky. I think it would be sufficient to mention where Odwalla's products fit into the market and how they compare with competing products (are they priced as a luxury brand or a mass-market one etc)... assuming, of course, that it can be sourced ;)

I hope you don't mind that I've copyedited the E. coli section a little, mainly trying to reduce redundancies in the prose. More copyediting will be needed at some point, especially if you're thinking of going for FA, but you're doing a fantastic job on the article - it's surprisingly difficult to write about a company in a way that's both neutral and objective, so great work! EyeSerene^talk 09:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought (referring to the logo copyrights). I'll see if I can get to Half Moon Bay to take a picture of the HQ since it'll be free. I'll also see what I can do about general information about prices. Thank you a lot for the copyedit. I've asked for a couple of other copyedits from different editors, so hopefully that'll help. Intothewoods29 (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jeremy ( Blah blah...) -

Good job in improving the article. Here are some issues that I have:

Use of "By date" and "In date" - In the history section you start a good number of sentences with those two phrases, could you reword them a little so that the date is better incorporated into said passages.

Done. If you see any more, just tell me and I'll move 'em around.

Images - I have been told that images should not be placed on the left side when under a heading, please move them to the right side of the page.

Done

Wikilinks - You appear to be over linking some obvious terms, just do a quick review and judge for yourself.

Done unless you see any more that need to be removed, then just tell me.

Whitespace - Some images are generating large swaths of white space, please move them so that the article flows better.

QUESTION: Is there any image in particular? It could just be the default size you set in "My preferences".

Image:Odwalla Food Bars.JPG in the last section, at 1280x1024 there is a large white space. You can fix this by relocating the image to the top of the section.

Red liks - One or two remaining

COMMENT: I was told (scolded more like) by a couple of admins for removing red links at WP:GAN, so I'm just going to leave them in for now.

Citations, dates - Sorry, but this one is a bitch: you did not use the |date= field in many of the citations from sources with defined dates. On those sources with the full with (dd, mm, and yyyy) use the ISO format and please link them (2008-08-24); do not link those that only have a mm/yyyy format, use the the standard mm yy format (August 2008).

Done I hope

Citations, authors - Another biggie: you did not use the |author=, |coauthors= or |others= in many of the citations from sources with credited authors. On those articles that have an author, please add them. Use these three fields:
- Use the |author= field for a single contributor.
- Add the |coauthors= field for articles with two contributors, this must be used with the preceding field.
- Add the |others= field for articles with three or more authors, this must be used with the preceding two fields.

Done

Citations, publisher - Many of the Beverage Age sources are reprints, please list the original source by putting Beverage Age reprinted from (source) in the |publisher= field. It would be even better if you can find the source from the original publisher.

DoneQUESTION: None of them are from Beverage Age... do you mean BNET? I'll work on that ASAP.

They are:
- BNet
- AllBusiness
- Beverage World
Also, PRNewswire articles are press releases as are a couple of BNet links.
Reference #49 is malformed and displaying the link data instead of actually linking to the source

I know these things are arduous, but take your time and do it right.

Some suggestions -

Here are some suggestions that are not required for your GA nomination.

Formatting - If you wish, ask Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to copy edit for Wiki-formatting After you have completed the things I have listed. He is good and will find things you, others and I have missed.

Call me when you are done,

Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Doing...

I replied to your questions, and check all of the links with the FA article tools (these are not required for GA, but will help for FA). everything else looks good. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 22:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA

Okay. I think I've taken care of everything needed for GA.

The food bar pic has been moved; I think the big white space results because the image is at the end of the article and because of individual image size preferences.
I think I got all the stuff needed for the refs. Two of the Beverage World articles didn't seem to be from somewhere else, but they were ads, so I changed the refs to press releases.
I know #49 (now #48) is malformed; I can't seem to get it right. I think it's because it's a PDF and the URL is weird. So yeah.

Replies:

Just in case, I moved it up a little more. I have no custom views setup on WP, everything is stock
Good
you were missing the http:// on both

looks good.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]